Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T17:57:54.011Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The gametogenic cycle and life history of Nicolea uspiana (Polychaeta: Terebellidae) on the south-east coast of Brazil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2014

André Rinaldo Senna Garraffoni*
Affiliation:
Departamento de Biologia Animal, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Caixa Postal 6109, 13083-970, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil
Leonardo Querobim Yokoyama
Affiliation:
Departamento de Oceanografia Biológica, Instituto Oceanográfico, Universidade de São Paulo, Praça do Oceanográfico, 191, Cidade Universitária, 05508-900, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
Antonia Cecília Zacagnini Amaral
Affiliation:
Departamento de Biologia Animal, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Caixa Postal 6109, 13083-970, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: A.R.S. Garraffoni, Departamento de Biologia Animal, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Caixa Postal 6109 13083-970, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil (Present address: Departamento de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri, Campus II, Rodovia BR-367, 39100-000 Diamantina, Minas Gerais, Brazil) email: garraffoni@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The gametogenic cycle and life history of Nicolea uspiana (Nogueira, 2003) (Polychaeta: Terebellidae) was studied by taking monthly samples over a 13 month period. Each month, 10 females were sorted; 50 oocytes were removed from the coelom of each specimen, and the maximum diameter was determined. Additionally, 10 males were sorted and 100 gametes were randomly selected from each specimen to evaluate their shape and maturation stage. This species is gonochoric and exhibits slight external sexual dimorphism (in the shape of the nephridial papillae). The sex-ratio of N. uspiana was 2.4 male for each female. The initial gametic stages of both sexes are produced in special structures called nephromixia. Oogenesis is extra-ovarian, and the germ cells are clumped and surrounded by follicle cells. These cells are ovulated into the coelomic fluid, and yolk synthesis occurs in this cavity. The maximum diameter of oocytes measured, 225 µm, showed that these eggs fall into the size-range for lecithotrophy. Furthermore, N. uspiana is an iteroparous species, as the mature individuals can breed several times during their lifetime. Male gonads release germ cells early in development, and sperm maturation also occurs in the coelomic fluid. The male gametes consist of flattened plaques of germ cells attached on their anterior part by a cytophore assuming a rosette-like appearance. Following maturation of the male cells, the spermatids produce arrays of stiffly vibratile tails, assuming a morula shape. The reproductive patterns and life history of the terebellids are also discussed.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2014 

INTRODUCTION

The great diversity of reproductive and developmental modes exhibited by marine invertebrates is a challenge to researchers seeking to understand the patterns and trends of their life histories (McHugh, Reference McHugh1993; McHugh & Rouse, Reference McHugh and Rouse1998; Ramirez-Llodra, Reference Ramirez-Llodra2002). The adaptive significance of reproductive and developmental modes in those groups has received some attention in the literature regarding the evolutionary constraints (e.g. Thorson, Reference Thorson1946; Schroeder & Hermans, Reference Schroeder, Hermans, Giese and Pearse1975; Strathmann, Reference Strathmann1985; McHugh & Rouse, Reference McHugh and Rouse1998). This challenge is especially true in polychaete annelids, which have been recognized for their high reproductive diversity (Rouse & Fitzhugh, Reference Rouse and Fitzhugh1994; McHugh & Fong, Reference McHugh and Fong2002; Qian & Dahms, Reference Qian, Dahms, Rouse and Pleijel2006). Wilson (Reference Wilson1991) and Giangrande (Reference Giangrande1997) have identified 17 modes of sexual reproduction in more than 500 species of polychaetes. Among these different reproductive and developmental modes, typical characteristics include the type of oogenesis, type of spermatozoon, maximum oocyte size, number of eggs per single spawning event, total female body size, development time, fecundity and individual growth rates (McHugh, Reference McHugh1993; Giangrande, Reference Giangrande1997; Nylin & Gotthard, Reference Nylin and Gotthar1998; Marshall & Keough, Reference Marshall and Keough2007; Moran & McAlister, Reference Moran and McAlister2009).

Among the polychaetes, the family Terebellidae contains approximately 70 genera and more than 500 species and is distributed worldwide (Hutchings, Reference Hutchings, Beesley, Ross and Glasby2000; Rouse, Reference Rouse, Rouse and Pleijel2001; Garraffoni et al., Reference Garraffoni, Nihei and Lana2006; Garraffoni & Lana, Reference Garraffoni and Lana2008). This high diversity contrasts with the small amount of data regarding their life history and reproduction, as reproductive and developmental traits have been investigated for only 29 terebellid species (Wilson, Reference Wilson1991; McHugh, Reference McHugh1993; Giangrande, Reference Giangrande1997).

Nicolea uspiana is a terebellid species which constructs mucous tubes covered by sand grains and shell fragments in the midst of aggregates of algae, ascidians, hydroids and bryozoans (Nogueira, Reference Nogueira2003; Garraffoni & Amaral, Reference Garraffoni and Amaral2009). It forms dense aggregations with individuals at different stages of development (Garraffoni & Amaral, Reference Garraffoni and Amaral2009). Although it is a common Brazilian rocky-shore terebellid from the States of São Paulo and Paraná (latitudinal range: 23o21′S 44o51 W–25o35′S 48o20 W) (Blankensteyn & Moreno, Reference Blankensteyn and Moreno1999; Nogueira, Reference Nogueira2003; Garraffoni & Amaral, Reference Garraffoni and Amaral2009; Santos et al., Reference Santos, Nogueira, Fukuda and Christoffersen2010), no reproductive studies have been performed; however, the relative growth and population structure of N. uspiana have been studied by Garraffoni et al. (Reference Garraffoni, Yokoyama and Amaral2010). Thus, the present study investigated the reproductive biology and gamete development of N. uspiana, to elucidate the diversity of reproductive and developmental patterns of the Terebellidae. Data on the mode of reproduction, body size, maximum oocyte size, maximum fecundity, mode of development and breeding strategy were analysed to examine the life history of this species. Furthermore, information about the reproductive patterns and life histories in other known terebellid species were compared in order to summarize the reproductive knowledge about this family.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Specimens of Nicolea uspiana were collected monthly (May 2006–May 2007) in the intertidal zone along the rocky shore of Porchat Island on Itararé Beach (23o57′35″S 46o23′15″W, São Vicente, Brazil). Specimens were collected qualitatively by removing the sand-covered mucous tubes from the rocks using a scalpel.

Samples were kept on ice in an insulated container to relax the animals. The polychaetes were transported to the laboratory and kept in an aquarium with seawater to sort them alive. In the laboratory, the specimens were removed from their tubes using a stereomicroscope, and the sex was determined by visual examination of the coelomic gametes or, in the smallest individuals, with a microscope. Females were identified by their whitish-yellow body coloration and the presence of yolk in the oocytes. Males were off-white in colour and possessed sperm-morule structures. Juvenile specimens lacked visible sexual characteristics (Eckelbarger, Reference Eckelharger1974). After these procedures, the specimens were anaesthetized in a solution of seawater and magnesium chloride for approximately 1 h, fixed in 6% formalin for at least 48 h, and then stored in 70% ethanol.

The histological analysis of gametogenesis in 10 mature individuals (5 males and 5 females) was performed by obtaining longitudinal sections from individuals of different sizes (10–18 mm in length). The specimens were dehydrated in an ethanol gradient (80, 95 and 100%), infiltrated and embedded in glycol-methacrylate resin, and serially sectioned at a thickness of 3–5 µm with glass knives in a microtome. Sections were stained with toluidine blue and later analysed by light microscopy and photographed.

To determine the size and volume of the oocytes in the vitellogenic stage, the coelomic content was examined monthly from 10 females randomly selected from the total number of females collected each month. These females were placed on a slide and gently compressed with a cover slip to let the oocytes shed from the coelomic fluid. Thus, fifty oocytes from each female were squashed under a cover slip, and their diameters were measured. The oocyte volume was determined under the assumption that it was spherical (total oocyte volume = 3/4πr 3, where 2r is the diameter of the oocyte). A series of histograms of oocyte sizes were constructed to evaluate the pattern of oocyte maturation over the study period. The criteria used for identifying the stage of oogenesis followed those of Eckelbarger (Reference Eckelharger1974), allowing the growth cycles of oocytes to be divided into the gonadal, follicular and vitellogenic phases.

The frequency of the occurrence of sperm stages was determined from a random selection of 100 gametes from the coelomic content of 10 randomly selected males collected between October 2006 and May 2007. The criteria used for staging sperm followed those of Blake et al. (Reference Blake and Van Dover2005), and allowed the growth cycles of sperm to be classified as rosettes of spermatocytes, early spermatids and morulae composed of tailed spermatids.

RESULTS

General characteristics

Nicolea uspiana is a gonochoric species with slight sexual dimorphism verified by the shape of the genital papillae, which are located dorsally and posterior to the notopodia (Figure 1A, B). The number and position of the genital papillae in the two sexes are identical; however, in the female, they are restricted to glandular walls and real papillae are not visible (Figure 1A), whereas papillae in the male are slender tubes or cones and are much more evident (Figure 1B). Both sexes have nephromixia composed of two inflated loops, one distal and the other proximal, and they are usually projected upward in the coelomic spaces around the gut. The excretory nephromixia of Nicolea uspiana occur on segment 3, and the reproductive nephromixia occur on segments 6 and 7. Internally, the distinction between the reproductive nephridial structure of males and females is evident (Figure 1C, D). However, both mature male and female specimens lack distinct ovaries or testes.

Fig. 1. Nicolea uspiana: size and shape of the nephridial papilae in female (A) and male (B) and internal morphology showing the female nephromixia (C) and male nephromixia (D). fp, female nephridial papilae; mp, male nephridial papilae; fn, female nephromixia; mn, male nephromixia; gva, glandular ventral area; e, eyesptos; vv, ventral vessel. Scale bars: A,B, 300 µm; C, 250 µm; D, 150 µm.

Of the 847 total specimens of Nicolea uspiana examined, 163 were females (19.3%), 391 were males (46.2%), and 293 were juveniles (34.6%). The sex-ratio of N. uspiana was 2.4:1 (male:female), which is significantly different from a 1:1 ratio (χ2 = 93.834; df = 1; P < 0.05). Males dominated the population in all samples (Figure 2).

Fig. 2. Nicolea uspiana: relative monthly frequency (%) of juveniles, females, and males from October 2006 to May 2007.

Oogenesis

The oocytes of Nicolea uspiana change shape from flattened to spherical during oogenesis. Histological characterization of the follicular and vitellogenic phases is shown in Figures 3A–D and 4A–D. In the follicular stage of gametogenesis, large clumps of oocytes (approximately 25 µm in diameter) are surrounded by follicular cells bulging into the coelom. At this stage, it is possible to observe the germinal vesicle in a central position in the oocyte with an oval nucleus (7–8 µm in diameter) surrounded by a cytoplasmic component. In the next stage, the vitellogenic phase, the degeneration of the peritoneal membrane occurs, releasing oocytes that float freely in the coelomic fluid. During this phase, oocytes of various sizes, resulting from the different amount of cytoplasmic components in the oocytes that substantially increase during maturation, are observed in the coelom (Figures 3B–D, 4D).

Oocyte development was not synchronized in the Itararé population, with individuals in different gonadal and vitellogenic phases and also some with no gametes. The analysis of the distribution of oocyte sizes of N. uspiana showed a wide range of oocyte sizes throughout the year (Figure 5), from less than 10 µm to greater than 240 µm (mean ± standard deviation: 85.2 ± 49.2 µm). The mean diameter was greatest in June 2006, September 2006 and December 2006, corresponding to the periods with fewer small oocytes (this pattern is clearest in December 2006). After each of these months, the mean diameter decreased and the number of small oocytes in the coelomic cavity increased.

Fig. 3. Nicolea uspiana: longitudinal histological section of the anterior region and first segments of the mature female showing the two pairs of nephridia and the mature oocytes (A). Details of the mature oocyte and large clumps of oocytes bulged into the coelom (B–D). bo, buccal organ; d, diaphragm; gc germinative cell; ln; left nephridia, en, nephromixia; no, notochaeta; o, mature oocyte; rn, right nephridia. Scale bars: A,D, 400 µm; C, 200 µm; B, 100 µm.

Fig. 4. Nicolea uspiana: distinct maturation stages of the oocytes (A–D) and spermatozoon (E–G). (A–C) immature oocyte; (D) mature oocyte; (E) spermatogonia; (F) spermatocyte; (G) spermatid. f, flagellum; gv, germinal vesicle; sp, spermatozoon; y, yolk. Scale bars: A–D, 50 µm; E–G, 30 µm.

Fig. 5. Nicolea uspiana: monthly size—frequency histograms of maximum oocyte diameter from May 2006 to May 2007. In each month, 50 oocytes were measured from each of the 10 females.

Generally, monthly samples had a bimodal pattern with many small oocytes and a small proportion of large (>200 µm in diameter) oocytes (Figure 6). These bimodal distributions occurred mainly within May, June, July, September and November of 2006 and January, February, March, April and May of 2007.

Spermatogenesis

The histological characterization of the three reproductive stages of male specimens is shown in Figure 4. In the males examined in Itararé, the most common sperm stages were rosettes of spermatocytes (48.9%—Figures 4F, 7) and spheres of spermatogonia (48.1%—Figures 4E, 7). Morulae were much less common (3%—Figures 4G, 7).

Fig. 6. Nicolea uspiana: mean and standard deviation of egg sizes from May 2006 to May 2007.

Fig. 7. Nicolea uspiana: relative monthly frequency (%) of spermatogenic stages males into rosettes of spermatocytes, early spermatids, and morulae. In each month 100 spermatozoids were measured from 10 males.

The spermatogonia are the initial stage of spermatozoon development and occur in the nephromixia structures (Figure 8A). After this stage, sperm platelets are found throughout the coelomic cavity as ovoid, flattened plaques of germinal cells. The anterior portion of each acrosome is positioned toward, and held together by, a cytoplasmic mass, the cytophore (Figure 4E, F). In these clusters, it is possible to observe distinct spermatozoon development stages as spheres of spermatogonia, rosettes of spermatocytes and morulae spermatids (Figure 4E, F). During this last stage, meiosis occurs and spermiogenesis results in elongate, tailed spermatids held together as morulae.

Fig. 8. Nicolea uspiana: transversal histological section of the anterior region of the mature male with cores in nephridial loop (A), anterior region showing the first pair of nephromixia (B), detail of the spermatogonia (C). c, cytophore; d, diaphragm; n, notopodia; ne, nephridia; p, prostomium; sp, spermatogonia; rc, residual core. Scale bars: A, 200 µm; B, 100 µm; C, 15 µm.

Without exception, males with non-motile sperm plates in the coelomic fluid had empty nephromixial ducts (Figure 8B, C). On the other hand, males in which the number of plates in the coelomic fluid was reduced or absent had nephromixial ducts filled with what appeared to be the ‘cores’ or cytophores of sperm plates.

Reproductive and developmental traits in Terebellidae

Table 1 summarizes the reproductive characteristics of 29 known terebellid species. Some species such as Artacama proboscidea, Eupolymnia crescentis, Amaena occidentalis and Amphitrite ornate are free spawning with lecithotrophic development. Lanice conchilega and Loimia medusa are free spawning with planktotrophic development. Nicolea zostericola deposits its gametes in gelatinous masses with direct development. On the contrary, Eupolymnia nebulosa deposits its gametes in gelatinous masses with lecithotrophic development, and Eupolymnia heterobranchia, Ramex californiensis, Thelepus crispus, Thelepus setosus, and Neoleprea streptochaeta brood inside the tube and show direct development. Regarding gametogenesis, only a few species have been as well studied as Nicolea zoostericola, Lanice conchilega and Eupolymnia nebulosa.

Table 1. Summary of reproductive characteristics available for the family Terebellidae. (-) missing information; (*) inapplicable information; A, maximum eggs diameter (mm); B, egg volume (calculated from maximum diameter (mm3); C, maximum fecundity; D, adult volume (mm3); E, breeding strategy; F, development type; G, larva type; H, sperm release; I, egg release; authors; BS, broadcast spawner; EB, extratubular brooder; IB, intratubular brooder; IT, iteroparous; LE, lecithotrophic; PL, planktotrophic; SE, semelparous.

DISCUSSION

Nicolea uspiana is one of the most abundant and widespread terebellid species on the south-eastern coast of Brazil with well-established populations occurring over a wide geographical range from the States of São Paulo to Paraná (Blankensteyn & Moreno, Reference Blankensteyn and Moreno1999; Nogueira, Reference Nogueira2003; Garraffoni & Amaral, Reference Garraffoni and Amaral2009; Santos et al., Reference Santos, Nogueira, Fukuda and Christoffersen2010).

Garraffoni & Amaral (Reference Garraffoni and Amaral2009) argued that N. uspiana has indirect development with a brief planktonic stage, characteristic of lecithotrophic larvae. This conclusion was based on the absence of intra- or extratubular brooding (an indication of direct development) and the presence of larvae with statocysts on the second segment (an indication of indirect development with planktonic larval stage). Moreover, N. uspiana can be considered an iteroparous species, as the mature individuals can breed several times during their lifetime (Garraffoni et al., Reference Garraffoni, Yokoyama and Amaral2010). This species exhibits extremely variable recruitment periods, with multiple spawning events and the settlement of new juveniles occurring in several different months (Garraffoni et al., Reference Garraffoni, Yokoyama and Amaral2010). Thus, because this species develops from relatively large eggs and has an abbreviated larval period without a feeding apparatus (Allen & Pernet, Reference Allen and Pernet2007), it can be assigned the reproductive and developmental traits of free spawning with lecithotrophic development.

Although individuals of N. uspiana have a maximum egg size (240 µm) close to that of other terebellid species (e.g. Eupolymnia crescentis—210 µm; Amaena occidentalis—210 µm; Thelepus crispus—220 µm; Nicolea zostericola—230 µm), maximum fecundity (i.e. maximum number of full-grown oocytes) differs among these species because of their different sizes. Nicolea uspiana has a smaller body length (ranges from 30 to 40 mm) than other species such as Amaena occidentalis (100 mm), Eupolymnia crescentis (130 mm) and Neoamphitrite robusta (250 mm). Thus, the reproductive output (percentage of total body volume given to a single brood or spawn) of individual N. uspiana will be lower than for individuals of other terebellid species.

Although N. uspiana and N. zostericola are in the same genus, oogenesis proceeds differently. Nicolea uspiana showed small cycles of oocyte production, with fluctuations on the oocyte diameter distributions over short periods of time. Eckelbarger (Reference Eckelharger1974, Reference Eckelharger1975) reported that N. zostericola is a semelparous species with annual growth cycles and with oogenesis divided into gonadal, follicular and vitellogenic phases. In the preliminary stages of oogenesis in N. zostericola, only small and flat oocytes (25–50 µm diameter) are present. During the follicular phase, the oocytes (50–75 µm diameter) are floating into the coelomic fluid. In the vitellogenic phase, the deposition of yolk increases and the diameter of the oocyte may reach a maximum of 300 µm (Eckelbarger, Reference Eckelharger1974, Reference Eckelharger1975). The sex-ratio of N. uspiana is distinctly different compared to Nicolea zostericola. Eckelbager (Reference Eckelharger1975) observed in the latter species that females comprised 44.8%, males 37.9% and juveniles 12.8%, with no significant difference in sex ratio, while here we determined that N. uspiana females comprised 19.3%, males 46.2%, and juveniles 34.6% with a significant difference in the sex-ratio.

In the classification system proposed by Rouse & Jamieson (Reference Rouse and Jamieson1987), there are three sperm types: (1) ect-aquasperm: spermatozoids are released into the water and fertilize similarly released eggs; (2) ent-aquasperm: spermatozoids are released freely into the ambient water but are gathered by or, in some other way, reach the female; and (3) introsperm: the spermatozoids have no contact with the water when passed from male to female (Rouse & Jamienson, Reference Rouse and Jamieson1987; Jamieson & Rouse, Reference Jamieson and Rouse1989; Rouse, Reference Rouse2005). The species studied in the present paper appears to fit the ect-aquasperm type (Thorson, Reference Thorson1946; Franzén, Reference Franzén1956; Eckelbarger, Reference Eckelharger1974, Reference Eckelharger1975; Jamieson & Rouse, Reference Jamieson and Rouse1989; Rouse & McHugh, Reference Rouse and McHugh1994; McHugh, Reference McHugh1995), as do most of the Terebellidae (N. zostericola, Ramex californiensis and Terebellides stroemii—only Streblosoma acymatum fits the ent-aquasperm type) because, this type of sperm is frequently correlated with species that have life history traits such as small egg size and external fertilization (Giangrande, Reference Giangrande1997). However, to confirm this hypothesis a sperm ultrastructure study needs to be conducted.

Comparative data of reproduction and development in terebellids

In terebellid species, male and female specimens are not easily distinguished by their external anatomy (Benham, Reference Benham1927). The only exception is the shape of the genital papillae or external gonopores, which are slender tubes in males and papillae in females (Benham, Reference Benham1927; Smith, Reference Smith1992, Reference Smith1994; present study). Regarding the position of the genital papillae, this structure can be found from segment 6 onward and can be located in three different positions: (a) dorsal to the notopodia; (b) aligned with the notopodia and posterior to them; and (c) inserted between the parapodial lobes (Nogueira et al., Reference Nogueira, Hutchings and Fukuda2010). The number of pairs of the external gonopores in the genera may vary from two in Terebellides, Lanicides, Nicolea, Pista, Thelepus and Streblosoma to three in Leaena, four in Amphitrite, eight in Terebella and nine in Neoamphitrite (Benham, Reference Benham1927; Smith, Reference Smith1992; Nogueira et al., Reference Nogueira, Hutchings and Fukuda2010; present study).

Regarding the internal anatomy in terebellid species, the body coelom is divided into two distinct parts by a septum or diaphragm: one anterior with excretory functions and nephridial papillae and a posterior one with reproductive functions and genital papillae (Rouse & Fauchald Reference Rouse and Fauchald1997; Zhadan & Tzetlin, Reference Zhadan and Tzetlin2002). The development and proliferation of the early stages of the gametes occurs only in the interior of the nephromixia, positioned posterior to the diaphragm, and gametes are then shed to the coelomic cavity where they are directly exposed to the coelomic fluid and can develop there for a long period (Eckelbarger, Reference Eckelharger1975; Smith, Reference Smith1992; McHugh, Reference McHugh1993). This type of gametogenesis was observed in N. uspiana, and is very similar to that reported by Smith (Reference Smith1989a, Reference Smithb, Reference Smith1992), Eckelbarger (Reference Eckelharger1975) and McHugh (Reference McHugh1993), who studied the terebellids L. conchilega, N. zostericola, Eupolymnia crescentis, Neamphitrite robusta, Ramex californiensis and Thelepus crispus.

Egg size is an important life history trait, as an indicator of the energy invested by the parental generation in its offspring (Giangrande et al., Reference Giangrande, Belmonte and Geraci1994; Giangrande, Reference Giangrande1997). This relationship between egg diameter and mode of development is well-established and delimited in marine invertebrates (Wray & Raff, Reference Wray and Raff1991; Jeffery & Emet, Reference Jeffery and Emlet2003). Thorson (Reference Thorson1950) and Schroeder & Hermans (Reference Schroeder, Hermans, Giese and Pearse1975) have reported that egg size is correlated with fecundity and development mode in several marine invertebrate groups, including polychaetes. Among terebellids, a huge range of egg diameter is observed (Table 1) from less than 100 μm in diameter (e.g. Polycirrus haematoides, Amphitrite ornata and Trichobranchus roseus) to larger than 762 μm in Thelepus cincinnatus (Fauchald, Reference Fauchald1983; Wilson, Reference Wilson1991; McHugh, Reference McHugh1993; Giangrande, Reference Giangrande1997). However, most of those terebellids have small eggs (15 species) with a planktonic larval phase, compared to a few species with large eggs (seven species) that develop directly into juveniles (Thorson, Reference Thorson1950; Schroeder & Hermans, Reference Schroeder, Hermans, Giese and Pearse1975). For this reason, Giangrande (Reference Giangrande1997) grouped the Terebellidae together with other families (e.g. Cirratulidae or Maldanidae) according to their different larval types as ‘coastal and deep benthic forms with a tendency for parental care and lecithotrophy’.

Regarding the terebellids that have small eggs and a planktonic larval phase, there are two types of larval development: lecithotrophic and planktotrophic, also called aulophore (Marcano & Bhaud, Reference Marcano and Bhaud1995; Garraffoni & Lana, Reference Garraffoni, Yokoyama and Amaral2010). The main difference between the lecithotrophic and planktotrophic larvae is that the former remain in the planktonic phase for a restricted period (a few hours to a week) and complete development without feeding because the larvae utilize the energy reserves of the yolk stored in the egg. On the other hand, aulophoric larvae (the only known larvae with a larval tube and a short planktonic feeding phase), even in the early stages of development when it has few segments, uses its ciliated tentacles to move to capture food particles. Moreover, this type of larvae is present in only two genera of the family Terebellidae, Lanice and Loimia (Bhaud, Reference Bhaud1888b; Smith, Reference Smith1989a; Marcano & Bhaud, Reference Marcano and Bhaud1995; Garraffoni & Lana, Reference Garraffoni and Lana2008, Reference Garraffoni, Yokoyama and Amaral2010), unlike what was reported by Strathmann (Reference Strathmann1993), and it appears as one of the shared putative exclusive synapomorphies between the two genera in the terebellid phylogenetic study of Garraffoni & Lana (Reference Garraffoni and Lana2008).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank three anonymous referees for offering suggestions that greatly improved the manuscript.

FINANCIAL SUPPORT

We thank the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) for providing a postdoctoral fellowship (Process 05/59809-7) to the first author and FAEPEX/UNICAMP and CNPq (Process 308072/2006-5) for financial support for this Project.

References

REFERENCES

Allen, J.D. and Pernet, B. (2007) Intermediate modes of larval development: bridging the gap between planktotrophy and lecithotrophy. Evolution & Development 9, 643653.Google Scholar
Benham, W.B. (1927) External sexual differences in the terebellid worms. Proceedings of Zoological Society of London 1, 141148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhaud, M. (1988a) Change in setal pattern during early development of Eupolymnia nebolusa (Polychaeta: Terebellidae) grown in simulated natural conditions. Journal of the Marine Biological Assossiation of United Kingdom 68, 677687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhaud, M. (1988b) The two planktonic larval periods of Lanice conchilega (Pallas, 1766) Annelida Polychaeta, a peculiar example of the irreversibility of evolution. Ophelia 29, 141152.Google Scholar
Bhaud, M. (1991) Larval release from the egg mass and settlement of Eupolymniu nebulosa (Polychaeta, Terebellidae). Bulletin of Marine Science 48, 420431.Google Scholar
Bhaud, M. and Grémare, A. (1988) Larval development of the terebellid polychaete Eupolymnia nebulosa (Montagu) in the Mediterranean Sea. Zoologica Scripta 17, 347356.Google Scholar
Blake, J.A. (1991) Larval development of Polychaeta from the Northern California coast V. Ramex californiensis Hartman (Polychaeta: Terebellidae). Bulletin of Marine Science 48, 448460.Google Scholar
Blake, E.A. and Van Dover, C.L. (2005) The reproductive biology of Amathys lutzi, an ampharetid polychaete from hydrothermal vents on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Invertebrate Biology 124, 254264.Google Scholar
Blankensteyn, A. and Moreno, T.R. (1999) Nova ocorrência de Nicolea venustula (Montagu) (Polychaeta, Terebellidae) na costa sul do Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Zoologia 16, 319320.Google Scholar
Christie, G. (1986) Observations on the reproductive biology of Trichobranchus glacialis Malmgren, 1866 (Polychaeta: Trichobranchidae). Sarsia 71, 259263.Google Scholar
Duchêne, J.C. (1979) Premiéres donnèes sur la reproduction et la croissance de la polychète Thelepus setosus (Terebellidae) en province subantarctique. Annales de l'Institut Océanographique 55, 145154.Google Scholar
Duchêne, J.C. (1980) Premiéres donnèes sur la reproduction at la croissance de la polychète Neoleprea streptochaeta (Terebellidae) em province subantarctique. Annales de l'Institut Océanographique 56, 109115.Google Scholar
Duchêne, J.C. (1991) Growth rate, fecundity and spawning in two subantarctic populations of Thelepus setosus (Quatrefages) (Polychaeta: Terebellidae). Ophelia 5, 313320.Google Scholar
Eckelharger, K.J. (1974) Population biology and larval development of the terebellid polychaete Nicoleu zostericola. Marine Biology 27, 101113.Google Scholar
Eckelharger, K.J. (1975) A light and electron microscope investigation of gametogenesis in Nicolea zostericola (Polychaeta: Terebellidae). Marine Biology 30, 353370.Google Scholar
Eckelbarger, K.J. (1976) Origin and development of the amoebocytes of Nicolea zostericola (Polychaeta: Terebellidae) with a discussion of their possible role in oogenesis. Marine Biology 36, 169182.Google Scholar
Fauchald, K. (1983) Life diagram patterns in benthic polychaetes. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 96, 160177.Google Scholar
Franzén, Å. (1956) On spermiogenesis, morphology of the spermatozoon and biology of fertilization among invertebrates. Zoologiska Bidrag från Uppsala 31, 355482.Google Scholar
Garraffoni, A.R.S. and Amaral, A.C.Z. (2009) Postlarval development of Nicolea uspiana (Polychaeta: Terebellidae). Zoologia 26, 6166.Google Scholar
Garraffoni, A.R.S. and Lana, P.C. (2008) Phylogenetic relationships within Terebellidae (Polychaeta: Terebelomorpha) based on morphological characters. Invertebrate Systematics 22, 605626.Google Scholar
Garraffoni, A.R.S., Nihei, S.S. and Lana, P.C. (2006) Distribution patterns of Terebellidae (Annelida: Polychaeta): an application of Parsimony Analysis of Endemicity (PAE). Scientia Marina 70S3, 269276.Google Scholar
Garraffoni, A.R.S., Yokoyama, L.Q. and Amaral, A.C.Z. (2010) Allometry and population structure of Nicolea uspiana (Polychaeta: Terebellidae). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 90, 877883.Google Scholar
Giangrande, A. (1997) Polychaeta reproductive patterns, life cycles and life histories: an overview. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review 35, 323386.Google Scholar
Giangrande, A.G., Belmonte, G. and Geraci, S. (1994) Life cycle and life history traits diversity in marine invertebrates and implications in community dynamics. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review 32, 305333.Google Scholar
Heimler, W. (1981) Untersuchungen zur Larvalentwicklung von Lanice conchilega (Pallas) 1766 (Polychaeta, Terebellomorpha). Teil II: Bau und Ultrastruktur der Trochophora-Larve. Zoologische Jahrbücher Anatomie und Ontogenie der Tiere 106, 236277.Google Scholar
Hutchings, P. (2000) Family Trichobranchidae. In Beesley, P.L., Ross, G.L.B. and Glasby, C. J. (eds) Polychaeta & allies: the southern synthesis. Fauna of Australia. Volume 4a Polychaeta, Myzostomida, Pogonophora, Echiura, Sipuncula. Melbourne: CSIRO, pp. 232235.Google Scholar
Hutchings, P.A. and Glasby, C.J. (1988) The Amphitritinae (Polychaeta: Terebellidae) from Australia. Records of the Australian Museum 40, 160.Google Scholar
Jamieson, B.G.M. and Rouse, G.W. (1989) The spermatozoa of the Polychaeta (Annelida): an ultrastructural review. Biological Reviews 64, 93157.Google Scholar
Jeffery, C.H. and Emlet, R.B. (2003) Macroevolutionary consequences of developmental mode in temnopleurid echinoids from the Tertiary of Southern Australia. Evolution 57, 10311048.Google Scholar
Marcano, G. and Bhaud, M. (1995) New observations on the terebellid (Polychaeta) aulophore larvae on the French coast. Ophelia 43, 229244.Google Scholar
Marshall, D.J. and Keough, M.J. (2007) The evolutionary ecology of offspring size in marine invertebrates. Advances in Marine Biology 53, 160.Google Scholar
McHugh, D. (1993) A comparative study of reproduction and development in the Polychaeta family Terebellidae. Biological Bulletin. Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole 185, 153167.Google Scholar
McHugh, D. (1995) Phylogenetic analysis of the Amphitritinae (Polychaeta: Terebellidae). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 114, 405429.Google Scholar
McHugh, D. and Fong, P.P. (2002) Do life history traits account for diversity of polychaete annelids? Invertebrate Biology 121, 325338.Google Scholar
McHugh, D. and Rouse, G.W. (1998) Life history evolution of marine invertebrates: new views from phylogenetic systematics. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13, 182186.Google Scholar
Moran, A.L. And McAlister, J.S. (2009) Egg size as a life history character of marine invertebrates: is it all it's cracked up to be? Biollogical Bulletin. Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole 216, 226242.Google Scholar
Nogueira, J.M.M. (2003) A new species of Paraeupolymnia Young and Kritzler, 1986 (Polychaeta, Terebellidae, Terebellinae) from Brazil. Scientia Marina 67, 407413.Google Scholar
Nogueira, J.M.M., Hutchings, P.A. and Fukuda, M.V. (2010) Morphology of terebelliform polychaetes (Annelida: Polychaeta: Terebelliformia), with a focus on Terebellidae. Zootaxa 2460, 1185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nylin, S. and Gotthar, K. (1998) Plasticity in life-history traits. Annual Revision of Entomology 43, 6383.Google Scholar
Qian, P.Y. and Dahms, H.U. (2006) Larval ecology of the Annelida. In Rouse, G.W. and Pleijel, F. (eds) Reproductive biology and phylogeny of Annelida. Enfield, NH: Science Publishers, pp. 179232.Google Scholar
Ramirez-Llodra, E.R. (2002) Fecundity and life-history strategies in marine invertebrates. Advances in Marine Biology 43, 87170.Google Scholar
Rouse, G.W. (2001) Family Terebellidae. In Rouse, G.W. and Pleijel, F. (eds) Polychaetes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 246250.Google Scholar
Rouse, G.W. (2005) Annelid sperm and fertilization biology. Hydrobiologia 535/536, 167178Google Scholar
Rouse, G.W. and Fauchald, K. (1997) Cladistics and polychaetes. Zoologica Scripta 26, 269301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rouse, G.W. and Fitzhugh, J.K. (1994) Broadcasting fables: is external fertilization really primitive? Sex, size, and larvae in sabellid polychaetes. Zoologica Scripta 23, 271312.Google Scholar
Rouse, G.W. and Jamieson, B.G.M. (1987) An ultrastructural study of the spermatozoa of the polychaetes Eurythoe complantata (Amphinomidae), Clymenella sp. and Micromaldane sp. (Maldanidae), with definition of sperm types in relation to reproductive biology. Journal of Submicroscopic Cytology 19, 573584.Google Scholar
Rouse, G.W. and McHugh, D. (1994) Ultrastructure of spermatids and spermatozoa in Ramex californiensis and Nicolea zostericola (Terebellidae; Polycheata). Ophelia 39, 225238.Google Scholar
Santos, A.S., Nogueira, J.M.M., Fukuda, M.V. And Christoffersen, M.L. (2010) New terebellids (Polychaeta: Terebellidae) from northeastern Brazil. Zootaxa 2389, 146.Google Scholar
Schroeder, P.C. and Hermans, C.O. (1975) Annellida: Polychaeta. In Giese, A.C. and Pearse, J.R. (eds) Reproduction of marine invertebrate, Volume 3. New York: Academic Press, pp 1123.Google Scholar
Scott, J.W. (1909) Some egg-laying habits of Amphitrite ornata Verrill. Biological Bulletin. Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole 17, 327340.Google Scholar
Scott, J.W. (1910) Further experiments on the methods of egg-laying in Amphitrite. Biological Bulletin. Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole 20, 252265.Google Scholar
Seitz, R.D. and Schaffner, L.C. (1995) Population ecology and secondary production of the polychaete Loimia medusa (Terebellidae). Marine Biology 121, 701711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R.I. (1989a) Observations on spawning behavior of Eupolymnia nebulosa, and comparisons with Lanice conchilega (Annelida, Polychaeta, Terebellidae). Bulletin of Marine Science 45, 406414.Google Scholar
Smith, R.I. (1989b) Notes on gamete production in Lanice conchilega (Annelida, Polychaeta, Terebellidae). Invertebrate Reproduction and Development 15, 712.Google Scholar
Smith, R.I. (1992) Three nephromixial patterns in Polychaeta species currently assigned to the genus Pista (Annelida, Terebellidae). Journal of Morphology 213, 365393.Google Scholar
Smith, R.I. (1994) A systematic problem of inter- and intra-generic variation in nephromixia of Terebellidae. Memoires du Muséum Naturelle d'Histoire 162, 287289.Google Scholar
Strathmann, R.R. (1985) Feeding and nonfeeding larval development and life-history evolution in marine invertebrates. Annual Reviews in Ecology and Systematics 16, 339361.Google Scholar
Strathmann, R.R. (1993) Hypotheses on the origins of marine larvae. Annual Reviews in Ecology and Systematics 24, 89117.Google Scholar
Thorson, G. (1946) Reproduction and larval development of Danish marine bottom invertebrates, with special reference to the planktonic larvae in the Sound (Oresund). Meddelelser fra Kommissionen forDanmarks Fiskeri- Og Havundersøgelser, Serie: Plankton 4, 1523.Google Scholar
Thorson, G. (1950) Reproductive and larval ecology of marine invertebrates. Biological Review 25, 145.Google Scholar
Wilson, D.P. (1928) Post-larval development of Loimia medusa Sav. Journal of the Marine Biological Assossiation of United Kingdom 15, 129149.Google Scholar
Wilson, W.H. (1991) Sexual reproductive modes in polychaetes: classification and diversity. Bulletin of Marine Science 48, 500516.Google Scholar
Wray, G.A. and Raff, R.A. (1991) Rapid evolution of gastrulation mechanisms in a sea urchin with lecithotrophic larvae. Evolution 45, 17411750.Google Scholar
Zhadan, A.E. and Tzetlin, B. (2002) Comparative morphology of the feeding apparatus in the Terebellida (Annelida: Polychaeta). Cahiers de Biologie Marine 43, 149164.Google Scholar
Willemoës-Suhm, R. von (1871) Biologische Beobachtungen über niedere Meeresthiere. Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Zoologie 21, 380396.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Nicolea uspiana: size and shape of the nephridial papilae in female (A) and male (B) and internal morphology showing the female nephromixia (C) and male nephromixia (D). fp, female nephridial papilae; mp, male nephridial papilae; fn, female nephromixia; mn, male nephromixia; gva, glandular ventral area; e, eyesptos; vv, ventral vessel. Scale bars: A,B, 300 µm; C, 250 µm; D, 150 µm.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Nicolea uspiana: relative monthly frequency (%) of juveniles, females, and males from October 2006 to May 2007.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Nicolea uspiana: longitudinal histological section of the anterior region and first segments of the mature female showing the two pairs of nephridia and the mature oocytes (A). Details of the mature oocyte and large clumps of oocytes bulged into the coelom (B–D). bo, buccal organ; d, diaphragm; gc germinative cell; ln; left nephridia, en, nephromixia; no, notochaeta; o, mature oocyte; rn, right nephridia. Scale bars: A,D, 400 µm; C, 200 µm; B, 100 µm.

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Nicolea uspiana: distinct maturation stages of the oocytes (A–D) and spermatozoon (E–G). (A–C) immature oocyte; (D) mature oocyte; (E) spermatogonia; (F) spermatocyte; (G) spermatid. f, flagellum; gv, germinal vesicle; sp, spermatozoon; y, yolk. Scale bars: A–D, 50 µm; E–G, 30 µm.

Figure 4

Fig. 5. Nicolea uspiana: monthly size—frequency histograms of maximum oocyte diameter from May 2006 to May 2007. In each month, 50 oocytes were measured from each of the 10 females.

Figure 5

Fig. 6. Nicolea uspiana: mean and standard deviation of egg sizes from May 2006 to May 2007.

Figure 6

Fig. 7. Nicolea uspiana: relative monthly frequency (%) of spermatogenic stages males into rosettes of spermatocytes, early spermatids, and morulae. In each month 100 spermatozoids were measured from 10 males.

Figure 7

Fig. 8. Nicolea uspiana: transversal histological section of the anterior region of the mature male with cores in nephridial loop (A), anterior region showing the first pair of nephromixia (B), detail of the spermatogonia (C). c, cytophore; d, diaphragm; n, notopodia; ne, nephridia; p, prostomium; sp, spermatogonia; rc, residual core. Scale bars: A, 200 µm; B, 100 µm; C, 15 µm.

Figure 8

Table 1. Summary of reproductive characteristics available for the family Terebellidae. (-) missing information; (*) inapplicable information; A, maximum eggs diameter (mm); B, egg volume (calculated from maximum diameter (mm3); C, maximum fecundity; D, adult volume (mm3); E, breeding strategy; F, development type; G, larva type; H, sperm release; I, egg release; authors; BS, broadcast spawner; EB, extratubular brooder; IB, intratubular brooder; IT, iteroparous; LE, lecithotrophic; PL, planktotrophic; SE, semelparous.